I first would like to say It's good to see this forum back up. I was having withdraws.
Anyone every tried Trojan Remover? Is it any good? Anyone know about the updates? How much is it updated? Is it just a scanner or does it have a resident? Does it work well with McAfee 7.0? Thanks.

Well ... if you are using McAfee 7.0, why do you want to use a trojan scanner? McAfee has a very powerfull unpacking engine and a strong trojan detection. Since version 7.0 it has process memory scanning, too. So why do you want to use a trojan scanner?

quoting: notageek link=board=25;threadid=8000;start=0#52317 date=1048135343]
I first would like to say It's good to see this forum back up. I was having withdraws.
Anyone every tried Trojan Remover? Is it any good? Anyone know about the updates? How much is it updated? Is it just a scanner or does it have a resident? Does it work well with McAfee 7.0? Thanks.

Click to expand...

Hello,

No resident but an option to scan at startup programs starting. No heuristic engine, only sig DB.
Updated when needed, once or twice a week.
No known issue with McAfee.

quoting: notageek link=board=25;threadid=8000;start=0#52317 date=1048135343]
I first would like to say It's good to see this forum back up. I was having withdraws.
Anyone every tried Trojan Remover? Is it any good? Anyone know about the updates? How much is it updated? Is it just a scanner or does it have a resident? Does it work well with McAfee 7.0? Thanks.

Click to expand...

Hey Notageek,

good to c ya.

I tried Trojan Remover back in Dec 2002. I liked it.

Scan was very fast as I recall.

On a Win ME machine, I got a clean initial scan, but when I ran a scan on my hard drive the file secur32.dll was cited as having scorpina (remote access trojan). I assumed it was a false positive, and did not remove or rename.

Turned out to be a wise decision on my part as Nigel confirmed in an email stating:

This has already been corrected in the latest available database update (3342). You were correct not to take any action on the SECUR32.DLL file, as this is indeed a valid Microsoft file.

That test was a long time ago in Anti-Trojan software terms. its also far too long in terms of the amount and the intelligence of some of the trojans that are appearing currently. You condemn Trojan Hunter for its performance in that test but it a relatively new product and in those days it was just breaking onto the scene. To use those results now is ludicrous.

I myself have TrojanHunter and the current version is a lot better than the version used in that test. I also use KAV4 and PestPatrol4. All fully paid. All three are on that test but i take no notice of their performance in those tests because the tests were far too long ago to mean anything now.

What you need is a comprehensive test done in the last 2 months. I don't know of one to be honest but until one appears there really is little point in looking at those test results. What next, a review from 1999?

The test mentioned earlier was from a trojan dump on the net, there was some specimens that were source code, and some that were clients only.. that said, it was a well known place a lot of users got their trojans, so those that did poorly were a bit disappointing

quoting: peakaboo link=board=25;threadid=8000;start=0#52358 date=1048194940]
I have heard of quantum leaps in tech development, but doubt the relative performance today would be significantly different from 6 or so months ago.

Click to expand...

TDS database grows at an exponential rate for the last year, and still coming. TDS doesnt care about VBS worms, as it detects many generically, and Wormguard detects them far too easily (close to if not 100% rate) and is automatic. Radius4 engine / database has thousands more signatures being added for detection sake

This is hardly development, but it shows on these "tests". However, TDS also has large number of generic detection IN the database which are added as per needed, and advanced signature database which is pure code we hide in there to detect some.. things. This is some actual development more so than signatures. Many powerful trojan detection routines are unknown, and rarely mentioned. It is for our users protection that they are there, not for tests

The current stats were mentioned, add to that an unknown number of modified variants detected by these methods.

On the say-so of Calamity Jane & a couple of others, I gave Trojan Remover a trial run. After just 3 days I bought it.

During those 3 days it went from ver 4.9.9 to 5.0.0 & updated its DB twice. The updater worked smooth as silk for the new version and for the DB updates.

It scans strictly on-demand, which is just what I need for my old box. It seemed to me that it scans pretty fast, but take my statement with a grain of salt -- this is the very first AT I have ever installed so I have no basis for comparison.

A button click gives you a full, alphabetized list of its DB. That list also has a pretty good search function. The latest db update says it has "6728 unique trojan signatures."

quoting: Angelo Bachmayr link=board=25;threadid=8000;start=0#52321 date=1048144617]
Well ... if you are using McAfee 7.0, why do you want to use a trojan scanner? McAfee has a very powerfull unpacking engine and a strong trojan detection. Since version 7.0 it has process memory scanning, too. So why do you want to use a trojan scanner?

Click to expand...

notageek,

c what u started

FYI, I'm kinda in AB's camp. seems like u would be covered having McAfee. Even the 5.21 scan engine covers a bunch of Trojans, & last time I looked did very well on In the wild tests. Since u have Mc7 u should be in good shape.

When I ran TR, my objective was to verify my system was clean. If I ever suspected a Trojan, I would run again as necessary, also easy enough to do a netstat or netstat -a in dos window.

Short of that just wait for a² (Ants) and be careful where you surf, click on, or open in an email - you should be ok, but you know all that, bears repeating for others who may not.

although these guys probably do not test for trojan or worm detection, or maybe they do I don't know, it should give you some comfort when you see McAfee's scan engine though not 7 mentioned in the 100% category.

Gavin, I read the the home page and seen the $99 and didn't relize it was for all 3 programs. My goof. But in all fairness trojan remover $25 less than TDS. I'm sure they offer (or offered) a free update when they change from 4.8 to 5.0.

Peakaboo, I should of listened to my mom when she told me whan I was young not to start anything just finish it. lol Yeah I might not even woorry about a AT. I don't click on links unless I trust the person that sends it. I don't open attachments. A2 (don't know how to make the little 2) looks cool but it's still in alpha, right? Thanks for the info.

Don't know how many machines are still out there using Win 95 & soon to be pulled from M$ support win 98.

One way to stop M$ from rolling over consumers (lining their pockets at consumers expense) and forcing upgrades when existing OS works fine is for great programs & programmers to allow their software to work with all versions of Windows to the extent possible.

Examples of great programs which I am aware of that are compatible with win95: